By
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
19
September 2020
•
Netanyahu, Peacemaker or Troublemaker?
By Ben
Caspit
• Alarm
Bells In Arab World
By
Nagehan Alçi
•
Troubled Lebanon Prey to Foreign Actors Once Again
By Zaid
M. Belbagi
• Why Is
Turkey Acquiescing to Egypt’s Role in Libya?
By Fehim
Tastekin
• Some
Call for Federalist System in Lebanon, But Such A System Would Fail
By Rami
Rayess
• This
Is the Kushner I Met — And Why Abraham Accords Is A Win for Multilateralism
By
Ibrahim Shukralla
•
Bollywood Makes Me Smile Amid the Lebanese Crisis
By
Christiane Waked
• A
First Lady Who Speaks of Peace but Prefers War: Anna Hakobyan
By Nur
Özkan Erbay
------
Netanyahu,
Peacemaker or Troublemaker?
By Ben
Caspit
Sep 18,
2020
The
historic normalization agreements that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed
in Washington Sept. 15 bring up again a question that has been asked by many
throughout his entire era in power. Is the real Netanyahu a peacemaker or
troublemaker? Is Netanyahu a pragmatic, visionary leader striving for peace or
the exact opposite — a nationalist, right-wing ideologue determined to block
what he views as a dangerous peace process with the Palestinians, constantly
circumventing the issue and perpetuating the status quo under which Israel
continues to control the territories and sweeps the Palestinian problem under
the carpet?
The answer
is complex. Since Netanyahu is one of the most perplexing figures in Israeli
history, the answer would probably be “both.” If you ask Bill and Hillary
Clinton, for example, they would choose the latter option. Netanyahu frustrated
President Clinton’s efforts to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace in the 1990s,
and did the same to the secretary of state (Hillary Clinton) over a decade
later. He holds a world record for going around in circles, covering the same
ground, with the clear goal of wasting time, exhausting opponents and getting
nowhere.
Put the
same question to Netanyahu’s supporters in the political center-right or his
opponents on the radical right, and you will hear a completely different
answer. Netanyahu is not a true ideologue, he is not bound heart and soul to
the land of his biblical forefather, he has never built a settlement and he has
no qualms about making concessions and signing agreements if he is convinced,
they are politically advantageous. In fact, they would tell you that Netanyahu
talks out of the right side of his mouth and acts to the left, adopts
nationalist rhetoric but implements pragmatic policy, and that Netanyahu’s sole
ideology is Netanyahu himself.
The facts
in themselves support the contention that Netanyahu is a man of peace. During
his first term (1996-99), he recognized the Oslo Accord his predecessor Yitzhak
Rabin made with the Palestinians, restored the West Bank city of Hebron to
Palestinian control, signed the Wye River Memorandum with PLO leader Yasser
Arafat and conducted serious negotiations with Syrian President Hafez al-Assad
on peace with Syria and withdrawal from the Golan Heights.
When he
returned to power in 2009, Netanyahu picked up where he left off. He delivered
a landmark speech at Bar-Ilan University, recognizing the two-state vision,
suspended construction in West Bank settlements and conducted renewed
negotiations with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad about withdrawal from the
Golan Heights. He twice conducted complex, advanced talks with the Palestinians
— the first known as the “London channel,” conducted secretly by envoys from
both sides, and the second by Secretary of State John Kerry and US envoy Martin
Indyk in 2013 and 2014.
Also,
Netanyahu did not go to war. He did not make good on his promise to invade the
Gaza Strip and bring down Hamas, he did not engage with Hezbollah in Lebanon —
unlike his predecessor Ehud Olmert — and practiced military restraint.
Netanyahu is not adventurous and he fears military entanglements, which makes
him one of the most defense-oriented prime ministers in Israeli history. He
approves far fewer operations across enemy lines than did Olmert and avoids
unnecessary risks, especially after the fiasco of the attempted assassination
in Jordan of Hamas leader Khaled Mashal 13 years ago. Mossad chiefs and special
ops commanders know how hard they have to work to convince Netanyahu to sign
off on a complex or risky operation. It is not a matter of his being less
courageous than Olmert and his predecessor, the late Ariel Sharon; he is simply
less willing to gamble on his future. In Israel, military entanglement is a
sure-fire way to political exile or a commission of inquiry. Netanyahu has
reduced the chances of such outcomes to a minimum.
On his
worldview, Netanyahu’s is a complex personality. As the son of a staunch
Zionist revisionist — historian Benzion Netanyahu — he was weaned on right-wing
ideology. Over time, his thinking became more nuanced. His current ideology is
personal: He truly believes that he must continue to serve as Israel’s prime
minister in order to ensure the survival of the Jewish state. Netanyahu is
convinced that only he can lead Israel to a safe harbor. His wife Sara
Netanyahu said as much, quite clearly and often, including in taped remarks she
made 20 years ago. His belief and that of his associates and voters that he is
a version of a modern-day Messiah allows him to mould his ideology according to
his political needs. When he needs support from the political right, he breaks
to the right. When he finds himself corralled by circumstances that require
concessions and agreements, he veers to the left, and so on.
A 2001
event provides a glimpse of his true beliefs. At the time, Netanyahu was
“between jobs,” after being defeated in the 1999 elections and bowing out of
politics. He went to the West Bank settlement of Ofra to visit Geula
Hershkovitz, who had lost her husband and son in a terror attack during the
second intifada. He arrived with a single aide and asked that the cameras be
turned off. His fascinating conversation with the widow and her family, which
was taped unbeknownst to him (available on YouTube), was enlightening.
Netanyahu
started out talking about international support for Israel, including American support.
“I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved
to the right direction. They say they are for us, but, it’s like … They won’t
get into our way. On the other hand, if we do something, they say something.
Eighty percent of the Americans support us, it’s absurd. … That administration
[Clinton’s] was extremely pro-Palestinian, I was not afraid to manoeuvre there,
I was not afraid to clash with Clinton, I was not afraid to clash with the UN.
I was paying the price anyway, I preferred to receive the value. Value for the
price.”
Netanyahu
was then asked why he had not abrogated the Oslo Accord when he took office in
1996. His explanation was illuminating. He could not have abrogated the
agreement, he explained, but he interpreted it in a way that allowed him to
stop the withdrawals from West Bank territory and the gallop toward the 1967
borderlines. He interpreted the “military sites” from which Israel would not
withdraw as “security zones," thereby greatly expanding the areas over
which Israel could maintain control under terms of the agreement. The Jordan
Valley in its entirety, for example, was declared a “security zone.” In other
words, Netanyahu did not rescind the Oslo Accord, he simply left it up in the
air, waiting for it to dry up and collapse. And that was what happened, indeed.
He managed to hold onto the stick at both ends — to avoid risking his political
and international standing by abrogating an agreement Israel had signed, but to
block its progress and starve it of oxygen until it expired.
Netanyahu
once explained that Israel could be generous in making longitudinal
concessions, but it must not withdraw sideways. In other words, giving up the
Sinai Peninsula was possible; conceding the Golan Heights could be possible,
too; but any concession of lands in the West Bank (sideways) given Israel’s
geographic narrowness is a distinct threat to national security. He will
therefore conduct eternal negotiations, exhaust his rivals, maneuver endlessly
and eventually ink only what he absolutely must, or whatever he gets free,
without giving much in return.
That is
what occurred in Washington this week. Netanyahu signed an agreement that does
not end war, but also does not entail territorial concessions, maintaining his
peacemaker image without undermining the right-wing rhetoric that keeps his
electoral base loyal. Netanyahu, unlike most people, manages to have a cake and
eat it, too.
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/09/israel-uae-palestinians-benjamin-netanyahu-bill-clinton.html
------
Alarm
Bells in Arab World
By
Nagehan Alçi
SEP 19,
2020
Alarm bells
have started ringing since deals signed between the United Arab Emirates (UAE),
Bahrain and Israel to normalize relations have highlighted the divide between
Gulf state rulers and the Arab public.
The
agreements were inked at the White House under the umbrella of U.S. President
Donald Trump, who trumpeted them as steps toward the end of division and
conflict.
Of course,
normalizing relations is – in theory – a good step in achieving peace. But if
this is at the expense of the fundamental rights of the Palestinians, it brings
nothing but chaos.
Coming
closer to Israel without protecting the rights of the Palestinians will only
deepen divisions in the region. As is the case in Trump's Jerusalem move, the
deals will only accelerate the split and increase anger, since the agreements –
dubbed the "Abraham Accords" – don’t even mention a two-state
solution.
Bahrain and
the UAE are not the only ones. The U.S.’ faithful ally Saudi Arabia is probably
up next. Egypt has already expressed its support, so the region is very clearly
divided between those who align with Israel at the expense of the Palestinian
people’s suffering and those who oppose it.
Turkey is a
key country here, given its relations with both the U.S. and Israel while
representing the strongest supporter of the Palestinians.
Ankara has
condemned the agreement and said that the deal contradicts the commitments made
under the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and the Organisation of Islamic
Cooperation (OIC).
The Turkish
Foreign Ministry believes that the deal will encourage Israel to continue
illegitimate activities and violations towards Palestinians.
President
Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a strong supporter of a just deal between Israel and
Palestine and believes that the only way to achieve peace and stability in the
Middle East is through a fair solution to the issue within the framework of
U.N. resolutions and international law.
However,
with this deal, the Middle East seems to be more divided than ever.
Bahrain,
the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel, backed by the U.S., are on the one
side, while Turkey, Iran, Qatar and all the Arab people in this region are on
the other.
This
agreement will for sure make Erdogan the leader of the Arab streets.
On the
other hand, this agreement should also be seen as an alignment against the
common enemy Iran. It enhances polarization and builds fronts in the Middle
East that I think are quite dangerous. This move will encourage Israel to
continue its illegitimate practices against Palestinians.
It is hard
for Turkey to balance tensions. It has remained as the sole actor to call for
peace on the side of the Palestinians but also part of international bodies.
Erdogan's
expectations are high. But it is a tough job. Dialogue should be maintained,
but the Palestinians should not be thrown under the bus.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/alarm-bells-in-arab-world
------
Troubled
Lebanon Prey to Foreign Actors Once Again
By Zaid
M. Belbagi
September
18, 2020
The
explosion that tore apart the port of Beirut and its surrounding areas last
month has not only left Lebanon’s capital crippled, but it has also made the
country more vulnerable than ever. The story of post-colonial Lebanon has not
been one of independence, but rather of interference by international and
regional powers. Whether it was US marines and Israeli tanks in the 1980s or an
Iranian-backed militia and Syrian assassinations in more recent times, Lebanon
has been the stage for repeated efforts by outsiders to extend their influence.
With the French and Turkish presidents now speaking in paternal terms over
their former colony, many wonders whether Lebanon has room for another foreign
power.
Given the
economic and political quagmire that Lebanon already found itself in, the
explosion brought a country that was already failing to its knees. The
subsequent clambering of both France and Turkey into the Lebanese political
fray has highlighted not only the country’s susceptibility to such efforts, but
also marked an important watershed in what could be a significant complication
of the existing proxy conflicts the country hosts.
Lebanon’s
neighbourhoods has never been an easy one. Following turbulence elsewhere and
the historical role of Lebanon as an extension of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, in the last two decades the country has seen itself at the centre of
efforts by regional hegemons as they seek to extend their writ over the wider
region.
The
country’s issues are often misunderstood as being the result of its
cross-confessional fault lines, but the reality is that regional political
agendas have actually done more to exacerbate the country’s religious
differences. The roles of, first, America and then Israel in the 1980s,
followed by the efforts of Syria and Iran to derail Lebanon’s prospects for
building itself into a confident and stable state, have all contributed to the
current malaise. Recent events have provided the spectre of yet more foreign
intervention.
Two weeks
ago, French President Emmanuel Macron traveled to Beirut to mark the centenary
of the creation of the modern state of Lebanon. This visit — his second since
the explosion — showed all the signs of colonial re-engagement. One hundred
years after French officials sat inside Beirut’s beautiful Residence des Pins
to conjure Lebanon from what had been Greater Syria, the visit was an
interesting if not complicated development. Macron, as president of the former
colonial power, is clearly seeking to influence events following the recent
explosion.
Since it
was first invited to join the UN Security Council (after having capitulated to
Nazi Germany), France has had an issue displaying its relevance on the
international stage. It has always been a central pillar of French foreign
policy to use problems in weak states as an opportunity to embellish its great
power status. Racing to the scene of the Beirut explosion within 24 hours of it
happening, Macron exposed Lebanese President Michel Aoun as being incompetent
and lacking the political courage to support his people in their hour of need.
Macron was
almost speaking for the many when calling for a change to Lebanon’s corrupt
practices and the clique of kleptocratic politicians who have enriched
themselves at the expense of the Lebanese citizenry. His efforts were greatly
lauded and 70,000 Lebanese signed a petition remarkably calling for a return to
a French mandate. The entire episode highlighted how, given the challenging
economic situation, especially for the hydrocarbon sector, the traditional
influence of Iran has been curtailed, providing an opening for the likes of
France and Turkey.
The
entrance of yet another colonial power in the shape of Turkey, whose Ottoman
ancestors ruled over the territory for centuries, has been an incredibly
interesting development. Though this development is indeed interesting, it
concerns many within Lebanon. It will do little to reassure weary Lebanese who
have grown tired of the machinations of foreigners on their soil.
Though
Turkey’s efforts have concentrated on providing much-needed aid and France’s
efforts have been focused on reconstruction and ensuring that aid is not
funneled into corrupt schemes, the re-emergence of Lebanon’s two colonial
powers is concerning. However, because the situation in which Lebanon finds
itself is also a worry, it cannot solve its challenges without foreign
assistance. There is also the argument that, had Turkey and France been able to
provide the assistance that colonial powers owe the countries they have exited,
Lebanon may never have become the playground of less responsible regional
powers. How the two will re-engage in Lebanon will be interesting, especially
in regard to the new donor conference the French president is planning.
Though both
countries have been keen to show they are not interfering in a region that has
seen successive weak states at the mercy of foreign interests, they will have
to go to great lengths to ensure their influence is administered carefully.
They would do well to focus on reconstruction and allow Lebanon to enjoy the
development that will make it the confident state it was intended to be, rather
than allow the current crisis to be an opportunity to settle their political
scores in the wider Mediterranean.
----
Zaid M.
Belbagi is a political commentator, and an adviser to private clients between
London and the Gulf Cooperation Council.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1736566
----
Why Is
Turkey Acquiescing to Egypt’s Role in Libya?
By Fehim
Tastekin
Sep 18,
2020
Turkey
appears increasingly pressed to downscale its goals in the conflict in Libya,
which has become closely intertwined with its gas exploration rows in the
eastern Mediterranean. The course of developments in the region dictates a more
realistic attitude from Ankara, including acceptance of Egypt’s role in Libya,
provided that certain Turkish expectations are met, and even laying the ground
for normalizing ties with Cairo.
With
settlement efforts gaining pace, Egypt has proved capable of mediating between
the opposing sides in Libya, though it had thrown its weight behind the eastern
forces fighting the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord (GNA) and its
Misratan allies, which Turkey has backed with military, intelligence and
militia support. Ankara’s rigid attitude in the conflict has reduced its clout
to influence over only its allies. And the infighting in the GNA presents a
further risk to Turkish interests in the upcoming settlement process.
In other
words, Turkey has failed to preserve the advantage it gained through its
scale-tipping military intervention since the rival parties called for a
cease-fire last month, opening the door to negotiations. The arm-wrestling
between GNA head Fayez al-Sarraj and his interior minister, Fathi Bashagha, has
made Ankara realize that it cannot control everything in Tripoli by deploying
soldiers and militia. Certainly, those setbacks do not mean that Turkey will
bow out and let others run the show.
The parties
in Libya were forced into talks by a stalemate on the battlefield after Egypt
drew a red line at the strategically significant Sirte and al-Jufra and Russia
reinforced the region in response to Turkey’s military intervention, which had
set Sirte, al-Jufra and the Oil Crescent as its next targets after securing
Tripoli. An Egyptian-sponsored cease-fire proposal by the eastern forces —
represented by Khalifa Hifter, commander of the Libyan National Army, and
Aguila Saleh, head of the Tobruk-based House of Representatives — in early June
was followed by simultaneous cease-fire calls from Saleh and Sarraj on Aug. 21.
Ensuing
street protests across Libya over economic grievances further pushed the
parties toward negotiations as the rivalry between Sarraj and Bashagha boiled
over in late August. Sarraj suspended Bashagha who, many believed, was eyeing
the premier’s post with Turkey’s support, and replaced other key officials in
Tripoli. In the east, the popular anger forced the resignation of the
government allied with the House of Representatives.
Amid the
fast-moving events, Turkey focused on keeping the GNA from unraveling. As a
result, Bashagha, whose influence draws on the Misratan forces, was reinstated.
Yet Sarraj irritated Ankara by moving to diversify his foreign ties, while
reinforcing his position at home. Having already replaced the chief of general
staff, Sarraj sought to tighten his grip over security, intelligence and media
bodies, promoting figures who irked the Muslim Brotherhood and Misratan groups
and even triggered calls for civil disobedience.
Since the
Sarraj-Bashagha showdown, many have tended to see an anti-Turkish move in any
step Sarraj takes. He seemed to back off from a meeting in Paris, to which
Saleh and Hifter were invited as well, after his apparent willingness to attend
sparked questioning of his loyalty to Ankara. But Bashagha, too, has been
courting France and Egypt, despite leaning on Turkey.
Either way,
both actors remain in need of Turkey’s support at present, as evidenced by
Sarraj’s Sept. 6 visit to Ankara, shortly after Bashagha’s trip to Turkey that
had coincided with his suspension. Sarraj was the one to sign the maritime
demarcation deal with Ankara in November 2019, reportedly under Turkish
pressure and fears of Tripoli falling to Hifter. The accord, which became a
mainstay of Turkey’s gas exploration claims in the eastern Mediterranean,
remains without a parliamentary ratification and its survival depends on the
survival of the GNA.
On top of
all those controversies, Sarraj announced Sept. 16 a desire “to hand over [his]
duties to the next executive authority no later than the end of October.”
Referring to the settlement efforts, he expressed hope that “the dialogue
committee will complete its work and choose a new presidential council and
prime minister.”
By speaking
of stepping down while trying to consolidate power, Sarraj is believed to be
trying to get rid of pressures ahead of prospective peace talks in Geneva. For
Ankara, his announcement resonates as a warning: “If I’m gone, the maritime
accord is gone as well.” The move, however, might stoke the infighting in
Tripoli.
In sum, the
balance among its Libyan allies is too fragile to allow Ankara to steer them as
it wishes. This, in turn, makes it all the more difficult for Ankara to steer
the dialogue between its allies and their eastern opponents.
Delegations
from the House of Representatives and Tripoli’s High State Council held
five-day talks in Morocco last week, reaching some understandings on
power-sharing. The talks sparked objections from several dozen members of both
bodies, who complained about the composition of their respective delegations.
Khaled Mishri, head of the High State Council who is close to Turkey, said the
talks were of consultative nature and not binding for the council.
Also last
week, representatives of Sarraj and Saleh held talks in Cairo, agreeing to set
a date for elections no later than October 2021, restructure the GNA’s
Presidential Council on the basis of a 3+1 formula — one president and two
deputies and an independent prime minister — and address economic issues such
as wealth management and equitable distribution of resources.
The Cairo
meeting followed Sarraj’s latest visit to Ankara, where the mood was far from
upbeat. Cairo’s emergence as a platform for reconciliation is not something
that Ankara prefers, but also not something that it is seeking to prevent.
Turkey’s flexibility can be attributed to several reasons. Above all, Ankara
realizes that Libya’s main oil fields have gone beyond its reach after the
Russian buildup in Sirte and al-Jufra and that it will now remain stuck in the
Tripoli-Misrata enclave. And with the fragile coalition in Tripoli creaking,
Ankara has no option but to give way to negotiations.
In return
for acquiescing to Egypt’s role, Turkey hopes to make certain gains, namely the
sidelining of Hifter as a solution partner and the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE)
exclusion from the settlement process.
The talks
in Cairo were limited to representatives of Saleh and Sarraj, thus meeting
Ankara’s reservation on Hifter. And if Egypt’s mediation would push back the
role of the UAE, the chief sponsor of the 14-month siege on Tripoli, that would
be a lesser evil for Ankara, which sees Emirate interference in its areas of
interest as more dangerous.
Another
factor compelling Turkey to acquiesce to Egypt’s role is Russia’s influential
posture on the ground. It was Russia’s delicate engineering that raised Saleh’s
profile on the eastern camp at the expense of Hifter. Hence, Russia is Turkey’s
only channel to exert influence on the eastern forces.
Last but
not least, breaking the ice with Egypt in Libya might give Turkey room to
maneuver to pull Egypt away from Greece, its chief adversary in the eastern
Mediterranean. Last month, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan revealed ongoing
contacts with Egypt on the level of intelligence officials amid growing calls
in Turkey, led by influential retired generals, to mend fences with Egypt and
Israel to break Turkey’s isolation in the eastern Mediterranean. While Ankara’s
support for the Muslim Brotherhood — Cairo’s archenemy — remains a fundamental
stumbling block, Turkey’s allies in Libya, too, acknowledge that Egypt is a
crucial neighbor and has legitimate security concerns.
https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/09/turkey-libya-sarraj-resignation-ankara-accepts-egypt-role.html
------
Some
Call for Federalist System in Lebanon, But Such A System Would Fail
By Rami
Rayess
18
September 2020
Calls for
federalism in Lebanon have flourished recently as certain pockets within
Lebanese society are fed up the current political system that is based on
sectarianism, nepotism and clientelism.
But new
calls for a new federalist system in Lebanon are unlikely to succeed because it
would simply produce a set of mini states that would not be viable, would
likely have contradictory agendas, and would indulge in endless conflicts.
Calls for
partition and federalism also flourished during the civil war, especially in
the 1980s when militants from various sects succeeded in drawing demarcating
lines between the different Lebanese regions along confessional lines. Even the
capital Beirut was divided into two parts: east Beirut, mainly inhabited by
Christians, and west Beirut, by Muslims.
At the
war’s close, when the time came for an internationally sponsored political
compromise, all parties – except Hezbollah – handed in their weapons, and the
temporary borders that had for years separated areas in Lebanon opened up and
citizens moved about freely once again. Life returned to normal sooner than
anyone had expected at the time.
And, more
importantly, this de facto partition was never institutionalized and formalized
in a de jure arrangement.
Today,
political arrangements that were set in the Taif Accord of 1989 that ended 15
years of civil war no longer seem viable either as the balance of power has
tremendously tilted in the favor of some parties, namely Hezbollah and its
allies, at the expense of others.
In the
past, this intricate and delicate balance of power has helped maintain
relatively adequate processes of decision-making that have kept the country
running in one way or another. With the new imbalance, the country has
descended into the abyss. Where Lebanon was once famous for its freedom and
openness in the region, those freedoms are now diminishing.
Old calls
for partition
Even when
the regions were divided, calls for formalizing partition of the country were
minimal, and those calls rarely had an actual political weight or effect. What
mattered were the military operations on the ground carried out by various
militant factions and that later all paramilitary groups were dissolved or
became part of the state. Militias became part of the state apparatus, and they
retained their original roles as political parties.
Where
federalism requires national consensus on foreign policy options, in Lebanon,
differences over foreign policy have been present since independence in 1943.
In fact, the National Pact, which was a verbal compromise between Maronite
Christians and Sunni Muslims, was based on a “no East, no West” foreign policy,
a policy designed for neutrality. Mutual fears were the reason behind this
understanding. Muslims would refrain from calling on Lebanon to be part of Arab
unity; in return, Christians would refrain from seeking protection from France
and the West.
Though this
formula worked for a while, it was not successfully functional on a regular
basis. Lebanon has for years been the battleground for regional conflicts
because it failed to build local consensus on foreign policy matters.
Does
federalism have a chance?
With such
deep divisions that led to armed conflicts, will federalism ever have a real
chance in Lebanon?
Recent
calls for neutrality ignited heated discussions as Hezbollah and its allies
rejected those calls. And with neutrality refused, federalism will be even
harder to accept.
If foreign
policy gives an example on how complicated installing a federal system in
Lebanon would be, other areas of consideration are likely to complicate matters
further.
How would
the federal districts be divided? Would they be along sectarian lines? What
happens to the mixed areas that include Christian and Muslim inhabitants? How
would the newly demarcated states coexist? If the current central state has
tense relations with external players and a state of war with others, would the
same relations apply to the different federal state or a state might get to
choose to normalize ties with Israel for example, while the other will throw
rockets on it and call for the liberation of Palestine?
At the
economic level, will those federal states be viable? Do some of them have
privileged advantages like a port and airport and the others do not? What about
industry, tourism and agriculture?
There are
many questions that would have to be addressed should a federalist system be
pursued, questions that will not be easy to answer. Federalism would be a
recipe for chaos in Lebanon and would further deepen divisions that will pave
the way for additional external intervention within these new federal states
that would have their own conflicting affiliations. And there would always be a
chance that those new states would turn the new federal Lebanon once again into
the battlefield of regional proxy wars.
Lebanon is
in the midst of unprecedented economic and social difficulties. But those
difficulties can be an incentive to reform the current political system, but
under a central unified modern state. This state would not differentiate
between its citizens according to sectarian affiliations and would introduce
civil status laws that give an option for citizens to organize their lives
outside the circles of their sects – as many in the street have called for.
This state would seek to monopolize power and defend its sovereignty, like any
other state.
Lebanon’s
collapsing economy must be an incentive for Lebanese citizens to push toward
reforms and unity, rather than encourage political divorce. Lebanon’s diversity
is to be cherished and strengthened instead of being cursed and weakened.
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2020/09/18/Some-call-for-federalist-system-in-Lebanon-but-such-a-system-would-fail
-----
This Is
The Kushner I Met — And Why Abraham Accords Is A Win For Multilateralism
By
Ibrahim Shukralla
September
19, 2020
It felt
strangely relieving, the moment the UAE and Israel signed on the peace treaty
Tuesday afternoon at the White House.
It took 49
years for the Arab Gulf country to finally decide to normalise ties with
Israel, becoming the third Arab state after Egypt and Jordan to do so. It is
definitely a triumph for the UAE and Israel, as these ties will open up
enormous economic, defence, cultural, tourism, technological and even sporting
opportunities. Israeli Intelligence Minister, Eli Cohen, predicted an annual
bilateral trade of $4 billion “within three to five years,” in his statements to
Reshet Bet radio station this month.
That is a
lot of money that both countries need as the world economy is struggling due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. There is no better time to uphold multilateralism than
today, and this is what this US-brokered UAE-Israel peace accord is all about.
I remember
in June reading a timely statement by UAE’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and
International Cooperation, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, which he gave
at the Belt and Road Initiative videoconference, saying: “COVID-19 has
strengthened rather than undermined the benefits of multilateralism. It
highlighted the vital need for all countries to avoid pursuing particularistic
and narrow interests.”
The world
is facing a crisis worse than 2008’s financial crisis. The IMF predicted a 4.9
per cent shrink to the global economy this year, and the unemployment in the
OECD’s 37 countries is expected to increase to 9.4 per cent year-on-year. UAE
and Israel’s pragmatism amid this chaotic economic situation is an example of what
the world, and the Middle East, in particular, needs right now. It needs
virtual, direct benefits to the people. Not popularise, not nationalism, and
not propaganda rhetoric.
The peace
accord is also a significant achievement for the Trump administration, which
also brokered the Bahrain-Israel normalisation deal. Apart from the president
himself, it was his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner’s starring
moment too. Amid all the coronavirus “mismanagement” criticism, blaming him and
other key figures at the White House, including the president, this peace
accord was indeed a sigh of relief, just two months before the presidential
election.
I had met
Kushner in Abu Dhabi on September 1 for a one-on-one exclusive interview, just
a day after the arrival of the first-ever direct commercial flight from Tel
Aviv. He was over the moon with this milestone step. He even told me that it
would be “logical” to him that all the 22 Arab states normalise ties with
Israel one day, because he is an “optimist” and because “there are a thousand
reasons why it should happen, and a very few reasons why it should not happen.”
Alongside
the will and courage of the leaders of the UAE and Israel to achieve what they
have already achieved; you definitely need people like Kushner when you are
trying to broker the first peace treaty for an Arab state with Israel in 26
years. Before interviewing him, I had read dozens and dozens of articles about
the 39-year-old Harvard-graduate in the US media. There was a quite negative
and cynical labels about almost everything pertains to him, be it his
competence, skills or even personal traits. There is a prejudgment that
evidently turned into a bias against him.
“Thank you
for the opportunity Mr. senior adviser,” I told him just before my interview
started on September 1. “Please call me Jared,” the 1.91cm tall
Hollywood-styled man in his dark blue suit, with a Capri blue colour tie,
answered in a gentle tone.
“I have
been begging your people to give me 10 minutes with you, I hope you would approve
that,” I told him, as he had a flight to catch to Bahrain and I was not getting
anywhere towards getting what I wanted, so I decided to ask the boss himself.
“Sure, that is fine,” he comfortably replied as the room went quiet.
As the
interview was approaching the end, I was getting waves asking me to end it
before my 10 minutes, so I had to repeat the trick. I looked at him in the eye
and went for it again. “Can I ask you the last question?” I said. “Yes, we can
do one more question,” Kushner told his team in a firm, yet humble tone. When
the interview ended, I asked him if I could take a picture with him. “I would
be honoured,” the US President’s son-in-law said.
I sat in
the same room with him for 30 minutes and watched him closely as he spoke to other
colleagues from the press, including myself, separately. I was also at the
Bateen Executive Airport, the day before, when he landed with a top-level
US-Israeli delegation and gave his statements at the media briefing. “I was the
first to ask you yesterday at the briefing, hope you remember me,” I told him
at the very beginning. “Oh yes, I do,” he nodded.
When it all
ended, I remembered what the then UAE Ambassador to Russia, Omar Ghobash, said
in 2016 about how some “very important individuals” in Russia he would often
meet and spend time with are portrayed in the press, versus how they actually
are. “They would be described as a ‘tough leader’ or who have some awful
syndicate. They are very normal people with parents, children and friends. They
are living normal lives,” he told the Arab Media Forum in Dubai. “I began to
become aware of the way actually there are certain very powerful biases within
the media.”
My
impressions of Kushner that I had met were kind, humble, soft-spoken and
certainly a pragmatic. Having met several heads of state, top-level officials
and many celebrities from different industries throughout my humble career, I
can say his composure and emotional intelligence are distinctive. His ability
to understand, give and take, turn old foes into brand-new friends, and embark
on missions to resolve, what many previous American leaders and top officials
could not, are evident through many outcomes, lately in his role in Israel’s
peace accords with the UAE and Bahrain.
It is a
breath of fresh air in the Washington, Abu Dhabi, and Tel Aviv today as a
chapter of the old Middle East has ended and a new one has started. There is
finally good news coming out of the region thanks to superb leadership skills
in the three countries that do not fear change; as a matter of fact,
transformational change. Two of the most advanced economies in the region have
come together during an era of uncertainty, exemplifying to the rest of the
region and the world how much work can be done for peace even during the worst
of times.
----
Ibrahim
Shukralla is an award-winning Emirati journalist. He holds an MA in Media,
Culture and Communication from New York University, US.
https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/this-is-the-kushner-i-met--and-why-abraham-accords-is-a-win-for-multilateralism-1.73952927
----
Bollywood
Makes Me Smile Amid the Lebanese Crisis
By
Christiane Waked
September
18, 2020
After the
Beirut blast on August 4, caused by an explosion of a large stockpile of 2,750
metric tonnes of ammonium nitrate that was stocked for six years in a warehouse
at the port leaving 300,000 homeless, injuring around 6,000 and killing 190
people, the Lebanese feel more depressed.
The country
was already sinking with high level of debt and hyperinflation reaching 629 per
cent (80 per cent of the country's food is imported). The NGO, Save the
Children, has found that over half a million Lebanese children are going hungry
in Beirut. Long and frequent power cuts have become common, people are
rummaging through garbage for food, and some are driven to even commit
suicides. Living in such an environment amid an economic crisis and constant
toxic political scenario, mental breakdown and severe depression are common
among people.
Fear alone
is enough to drive anyone crazy and how can you not live in fear in a country
like Lebanon where everyday has become a challenge to survive not only from
Covid-19 but also from hunger, piled up bills, a potential civil war, etc.
One day, I
felt like I was hitting rock bottom. I had a severe panic attack and felt like
I couldn't breath anymore, my heart was beating so fast, my hands felt numbed,
and I thought to myself if I don't do anything to save myself from this
situation, I will become crazy.
I started
to work on my breathing techniques and after managing to calm myself down, I
took the advice of a dear friend who nagged me to watch Bollywood movies even
if I am not in a good mood. He actually emphasised that because my mood is so
low and bad, I need to watch Indian movies. He 'guaranteed' that something will
change in me. So that day, when luckily there was electricity, I put the fan on
and started to watch the movies sent by my friend and I was instantly hooked.
There is
something about Indian movies that make you fly away from your problems - the
catchy music, the choreography that makes you want to jump from your seat and
start to dance, the feast of colours, the flamboyant scenery, the charming
actors, the sweetness of the scenario, and most importantly, India the country
itself.
Watching
these movies was such an immersive experience that I momentarily forgot that I was in Lebanon, surrounded by
endless problems, corrupted politicians, desperate people. Bollywood helped me
escape for a couple of hours the roughness of my life and travel in my imagination
to India.
I started
to imagine myself wearing a traditional sari, walking in New Delhi, eating
delicious street food, smelling the various spices, and enjoying kids laughing.
During the
movie, I started to think why can't everything be like a musical Bollywood
movie, easy, light, colourful, and fun? Why life imposes upon us such
heaviness?
I advise
all my friends who are going through rough moments to put their worries aside
and watch Indian movies.
I am sure
people in India also have their fair share of problems and struggles and their
life is not a Bollywood movie but all the Indians I have met in my life
especially when I used to live in the UAE carried joy and positivity in their
hearts, and it was contagious.
It is okay
to cheat on life and find moments to escape the misery through different means,
Bollywood being one of them.
----
Christiane
Waked is a political analyst based in Beirut
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/editorials-columns/bollywood-makes-me-smile-amid-the-lebanese-crisis
----
A First
Lady Who Speaks of Peace but Prefers War: Anna Hakobyan
By Nur
Özkan Erbay
SEP 19,
2020
The wife of
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian, Anna Hakobyan, recently posed with a
Kalashnikov automatic rifle in her hands during a military drill with the
Armenian army in occupied Nagorno-Karabakh at a time when tensions and
conflicts are increasing.
Hakobyan,
who in 2018 allegedly acted as a peace envoy with her call to Azerbaijani women
for the “Women for Peace” campaign, showed how much she really supports peace
with photos of a gun in her hands two years later.
The
escalating tension on the Azerbaijan-Armenia border in July once again turned
the eyes of the world to the region. The two countries were at the brink of war
when Armenia attacked Azerbaijan’s Tovuz region.
Twenty
soldiers from both sides lost their lives in mutual artillery fire in Tovuz.
The
Armenian army violated a cease-fire on July 12 and attacked Azerbaijani border
positions in the northwestern Tovuz district with artillery fire, later
withdrawing after suffering heavy losses following retaliation from the
Azerbaijani army.
While these
conflicts continued, the 42-year-old first lady on Aug. 25 appeared at a drill
of the Armenian army in the region. In these photos, which caught the attention
of the Armenian press, Hakobyan posed with a gun in her hands, taking aim with
10-15 female Armenian soldiers in military uniforms.
Footage
showing Hakobyan at the front while turning her barrel toward Azerbaijan,
despite demanding Azerbaijani women make efforts for peace two years ago, has
caused astonishment.
The stance
of Hakobyan, who already stoked the existing conflict simply by visiting
Armenian-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh, is clearly far from giving a message of
peace.
What is
more surprising is that Hakobyan participated in these military drills within
the scope of her Women for Peace campaign.
As a first
in the world, Armenia’s first lady delivers her “peace” campaign with women in
military uniforms.
The woman
in military uniform said on Facebook on July 13 that the Women For Peace
campaign aimed at "uniting women against war, creating a favorable
environment for the leaders of the conflicting countries to seek solutions to
the conflicts at the negotiating table." Participation in military training
also followed recent remarks by Hakobyan that "war must always be avoided,
there is always an alternative."
Hakobyan’s
poses in military attire with Armenian soldiers, while saying these words on
one hand and demanding Azerbaijani women and mothers to take initiatives for
peace on the other, are virtually like saying, “fight for peace.”
On the
other side, Azerbaijan preserves its moderate stance toward these messages.
Vice President and spouse of Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, Mehriban
Aliyeva, told Azerbaijan’s state news agency: “In everyday activities, one
should not forget about philanthropy, mercy, mutual respect and kindness. On
the contrary, guided precisely by these spiritual values, one can achieve the
highest victories and rise to the highest peaks.”
Actively
promoting Azerbaijan in the international arena and enriching politics, Aliyeva
serves the progress of the Azerbaijani motherland, strives to develop culture,
education, health care and sports in her country, and cares about its future.
Aliyeva in
2004 was chosen as UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador and in 2006 as the Islamic World
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (ICESCO) Goodwill
Ambassador, which was hailed as a historic achievement opening new horizons for
the promotion of Azerbaijan’s rich cultural heritage to the world in
Azerbaijani media.
In
implementing significant projects within the scope of UNESCO, Aliyeva also keen
to promote universal values such as peace, stability, the dialogue of
civilizations, multiculturalism in the civilized world and consolidation of
efforts in these areas.
Aliyeva has
been awarded prizes related to the work she has conducted as UNESCO and ICESCO
goodwill ambassador as well as many other international prizes for her
contributions to the promotion of culture and international cultural exchange,
preservation of global cultural heritage and because of her commitment to the
principles of social justice and humanism.
Thus, the
attitude of the Vice President of Azerbaijan Mehriban Aliyeva, who is trying to
build peace despite all this, must be noticed in the face of the actions of the
First Lady of Armenia fueling this war. Aliyeva could have responded to
Hakobyan as wife of the President of the country but prefered the lean on
strong statemanship role for herself and her country as the Vice President of
Azerbaijan. In fact, she could opt to act instinctly and reflexlvey like
Armenian first lady, whose country actually occupied the territory of
Azerbaijan.
However,
the fact that Aliyeva did not choose this must be a strong test of patience
that should be appreciated not only for the Azerbaijani people but for the
whole world, in the name of peace.
-----
Nur
Özkan Erbay is Daily Sabah Ankara Bureau Chief
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/op-ed/a-first-lady-who-speaks-of-peace-but-prefers-war-anna-hakobyan
----
URL; https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/middle-east-press-netanyahu,-lebanon,/d/122890
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism